HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Development Management & Zoning Ordinance 08-15-1996ST. CROIX COUNTY
NOTICE OF COMMITTEE MEETING
TO: Robert Boche, St. Croix County Board Chairman
FROM: Tom Dorsey, Chairman
COMMITTEE TITLE: County Development Management Plan and Zoning
Ordinance Steering Committee
DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, August 15, 1996
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
LOCATION: St. Croix County Government Center, Hudson, WI
Room 1281/1282
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
ACTION ON PREVIOUS MINUTES:
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Project Status Report
2. Community Surveys Analysis
3. Land Use Analysis
4. Policy Analysis
5. Visioning Session
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Any Other Business
DATES & AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
ANNOUNCEMENTS & CORRESPONDENCE
ADJOURNMENT:
(This agenda not necessarily presented in this order)
Submitted by:
Date:
St. Croix County Planning Department
August 1, 1996
cc: County Board Office News Media/Notice Board
MINUTES
COUNTY DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN & ZONING ORDINANCE
STEERING COMMITTEE
AUGUST 15, 1996
ST. CROIX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, HUDSON, WI
PRESENT: Chairperson Tom Dorsey; Committee members Dick King, George Menter, Carolyn
Barrette, Jim Winzer, Linda Luckey, Kermit Thompson, Cyril Cernohous and Jan
Hinchman. Staff present included Ellen Denzer, Dave Fodroczi, Tom Nelson, Jim Janice,
Jay Tappen, Mark Sebesta and Jerry Chasteen. Guests in attendance were Tony Steiner,
Kris Belling, and Wayne Willink.
ABSENT: Committee member Jack Breault, excused.
Chairperson Dorsey called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m. Motion by Raymond, seconded by
Cernohous to adopt the agenda. Motion carried. Motion by King, seconded by Raymond to approve the
May 30, 1996 minutes. Motion carried.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Project Status Report
Denzer reported that the Technical Committee has met twice to review and discuss a model for delineating
environmental features. The meetings made significant progress, and the Technical Committee will meet
again to finalize in two weeks.
Tappen reported that some of the digital soils maps for the County have yet to be delivered by the MRCS.
The contract deadline is the end of September, so they should arrive soon. The RPC staff are working
on a status quo development scenario to be available for the Visioning Workshop.
Visioning Session
Janke reviewed the background materials that had been distributed to the Committee in preparation for
the Visioning Session to be held on September 7, 1996. He explained that the Visioning Session would
be one step in the process to develop a plan and ordinance. He reviewed the basic concepts of the
planning process and emphasized the differences between a plan and zoning ordinance. Janke explained
that the Visioning Session would help define the future that the County should try to attain through its
plan, ordinances and related development policies.
Committee and staff discussed a staff recommendation to include a number of volunteers from the public
in the Visioning Session. Committee agreed that it would expand the base of input and geographic
diversity. Establishment of a workgroup for the zoning ordinance was also discussed. The Committee
reviewed possible members for both groups and agreed that staff should finalize the participants with
Chairperson Dorsey.
Land Use Analysis
Tappen presented and reviewed a current land -use map based on 1993 data. He compared it to a 1973
land -use map that the RPC had previously prepared. Tappen then referred to the Land Use Trends
Analysis to summarize the major land use trends represented in the maps and changes in the different
categories of land use around the County. Belling asked how grasslands were categorized, and Tappen
explained that grasslands would most likely be included in the "Agriculture and Vacant" classification.
Raymond commented that it will be important to compare the existing land use to existing zoning maps.
Staff encouraged the Committee to continue reviewing the Land Use Trends Analysis for any additional
questions or comments.
Community Surveys Analysis
Janke presented a report on a comparison of Community Survey responses according to place of residence,
length of residence and income. The County was divided into three north -south areas referred to as
"western", "middle" and "east". Janke reported that responses only varied significantly on 13 survey
questions according to place of residence in the three different areas of the County. The 13 questions
largely dealt with agriculture, open space and recreation. Janke indicated that there were nine questions
that responses varied significantly according to length of residence. These questions generally involved
open space, recreation, taxes and commuting. The greatest variation in responses was due to differences
in income. Eighteen survey questions had significantly different responses based on income. They
addressed almost all categories of questions in the survey.
Motion by King, seconded by Barrette to adjourn at 11:05 a.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted:
David Fodroczi, Recording tecretary
Fa